4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Pula.
5.  The applicant worked as a janitor for the Ministry of the Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske; hereinafter - “the Ministry”) until 3 August 2001, when the Ministry dismissed him as his job had become redundant.
6.  On 21 August 2001 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Minister of the Interior.
7.  The applicant also brought a civil action against the Ministry in the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli) on 20 September 2001, challenging his dismissal and asking to be reinstated.
8.  Simultaneously (since the Minister had not decided on his appeal of 21 August 2001 within the statutory time-limit of thirty days), on 25 September 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) as though his appeal had already been dismissed. In particular, he contested the decision of 3 August 2001 to dismiss him.
9.  On 5 December 2001 the Pula Municipal Court, concerning the applicant’s civil action of 20 September 2001, declined its jurisdiction in the matter on the basis that the Administrative Court was the appropriate court to hear the applicant’s case.
10.  On 13 December 2001 the Minister of the Interior dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 21 August 2001 lodged against the Ministry’s decision to make him redundant. However, he reversed the first-instance decision of 3 August 2001 by extending the applicant’s notice period and changing the date of the termination of employment.
11.  Consequently, on 29 December 2001 the applicant withdrew the administrative action he had brought before the Administrative Court on 25 September 2001 (see paragraph 8 above).
12.  On 30 December 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli) against the decision of the Pula Municipal Court of 5 December 2001 declining the jurisdiction in his case.
13.  On 31 December 2001 the applicant then brought a fresh administrative action against the Ministry in the Administrative Court – this time contesting the Minister’s decision of 13 December 2001.
14.  On the basis of the applicant’s withdrawal of his administrative action of 25 September 2001, the Administrative Court on 28 February 2002 discontinued the proceedings instituted by that action (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above).
15.  On 4 November 2002 the Pula County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 30 December 2001 and upheld the first-instance decision of the Pula Municipal Court declining jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s civil action of 20 September 2001, on the ground that the matter was within the competence of the Administrative Court (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above). The case was transferred to the Administrative Court on 22 November 2002.
16.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant withdrew his civil action of 20 September 2001.
17.  On 13 January 2003 the Pula Municipal Court informed the Administrative Court that the applicant had withdrawn his civil action.
18.  On that basis, on 16 January 2003 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings instituted by that action. The decision of the Administrative Court reads:
“The plaintiff, through a representative, lodged his action against the decision of the Ministry of the Interior ... of 13 December 2001, by which the decision of the same Ministry of 3 August 2001 was reversed in that the plaintiff’s employment in the Istarska Police Department was to be terminated five months after the expiry of the notice period which started running on 6 August 2001 ...
Section 28 of the Administrative Disputes Act (Official Gazette, nos. 53/1991, 9/1992, 77/1992) provides that the plaintiff can withdraw his action until the court orders that the decision be served on the parties, in which case the court shall issue a decision discontinuing the proceedings.
Since the plaintiff, by a letter received in this court on 13 January 2003, which had been filed in the case file, had withdrawn his action, this court, acting under Section 28 of the Administrative Disputes Act, decided as noted in the operative part of this decision.”
19.  On 2 October 2004, since he had received no reply concerning the administrative action he had brought before the Administrative Court on 31 December 2001 (see paragraph 13 above) the applicant urged it to decide on his action. He pointed out that, in order to avoid any possible confusion, it was necessary to distinguish the civil action which he had brought before the Pula Municipal Court, which had been transferred to the Administrative Court and which he had withdrawn, from the administrative action which he wanted to pursue. However, the applicant received no reply from the Administrative Court.
20.  Therefore, on 12 August 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings before the Administrative Court instituted by his action of 31 December 2001.
21.  The applicant pointed out that the civil action he had brought before the Pula Municipal Court had been transferred to the Administrative Court and that he had then withdrawn that action. Consequently, on 16 January 2003, the Administrative Court had discontinued those proceedings. However, he had never received any information or court decision concerning his administrative action of 31 December 2001 although those proceedings had been pending for almost four years.
22.  On 17 October 2007 the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that, according to the information provided by the Administrative Court, the proceedings complained of had been discontinued by the Administrative Court on 16 January 2003, because the applicant had withdrawn that action. The Constitutional Court therefore asked the applicant whether he wished to maintain his constitutional complaint.
23.  On 30 October 2007 the applicant informed the Constitutional Court that he did wish to maintain his constitutional complaint, and explained that the Administrative Court decision of 16 January 2003 referred to the proceedings instituted by his civil action of 20 September 2001, whereas he was, in fact, complaining about the proceedings instituted by his administrative action of 31 December 2001. The applicant also pointed out that he had never received any notice or decision from the Administrative Court concerning that action.
24.  On 19 November 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible. It found that the proceedings complained of had ended on 16 January 2003, when the Administrative Court discontinued those proceedings, whereas the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint after that date, on 12 August 2005. It then reiterated its settled case-law, to the effect that section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act could not be interpreted as allowing constitutional complaints to be lodged about the length of proceedings that had already ended.
25.  However, Judge Davor Krapac expressed a dissenting opinion, in which he first explained that when, on 22 November 2002, the civil court had forwarded the case originating from the applicant’s civil action of 20 September 2001 to the Administrative Court, that court had filed the documents belonging to that case together with those relating to the applicant’s administrative action of 31 December 2001. Therefore, when the applicant had withdrawn his civil action of 20 September 2001, the Administrative Court had also discontinued the proceedings instituted by his administrative action of 31 December 2001. The Judge also noted that the applicant had urged the Administrative Court on 2 October 2004 to decide on his administrative action, showing that he had wanted his proceedings in the Administrative Court to be continued. Furthermore, since he had had no right to appeal against an erroneous decision of the Administrative Court, he had also been unable to submit a request for the reopening of proceedings under the relevant law.
26.  This situation, in Judge Krapac’s view, had amounted to a grave violation of the right of access to court. In his dissenting opinion he noted:
 “ ... when a judicial body (having in mind all parts of that body, including the court’s administration) creates a situation, whether by its actions or omissions, where a certain action is not only not decided, within a reasonable time but, owing to complete ignorance of its existence, not decided at all, then this amounts to a grave violation of the right of access to a court and an extreme form of violation of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.”
27.  The Constitutional Court served its decision on the applicant’s representative on 28 November 2008.